EU Commission Declines Patent Debate Restart

maxkueng writes "I just recieved an email from NoSoftwarePatents.com. They say: 'The EU Commission, under the leadership of someone who previously failed as Portuguese prime minister and as per the suggestion of a Microsoft puppet, has decided to decline the European Parliament's request for restarting the process on the software patent directive.' More can be read on Florian Mueller's Forum post."

Comments

You really have to admire their loyalty.

[elhondo]

Once they're bought, they stay bought.

Re:You really have to admire their loyalty.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Europe not the US. European political figures don't fall victim to the same shortcomings that American ones do. They can't be bought. They are superior in every way, go take your worthless sentiments to some other message board.

A slap in the face...

[c0l0]

It's a sad day for those who believe democratic ideals were still governing politicians actions in the EU. A really sad day.

Re:A slap in the face...

[onash]

Whoah! That is a very naive opinion on the EU.

I am very grateful to the EU as it is tying together all the countries in the continent that has suffered the most from wars in the last century. By making all the countries depend on each other in trade, none of them will ever think of going to war against each other again.

Now with the addition of eastern Europe, the EU can help the poorer countries of Europe create better living situation for their citizens.. that alone will make things so much easier for Europe's future.

Your "logic" sounds like the FUD that anti-everything use on any government or international organization they don't like these days. It is just not right.. Criticism is good, but bullshit just makes things worse.

Why can they do this?

[gstoddart]

Can any informed Europeans tell us why the Comission can just ignore what they've been told to do?

It just seems really odd that when the elected groups say "game over" the other group can just say "too bad, we're doing it".

Re:Why can they do this?

[Carewolf]

Because they don't think the parliament will fire them over just this, and that is the only option of sanction the European Parliament has.

Re:Why can they do this?

[c0l0]

The European Parliament is not able to issue obligatory mandates to the EU Commission, although it's the far greater (as in numbers) cabinet, and directly elected by the EU's citizens (which the Comission is not). Just like you, I've got no clue why this is the case. Must have been some (at least partly) insane mind introducing these rules. That's one of the reasons why the EU is ill-reputed as the anti-democratic moloch it actually is.

Re:Why can they do this?

[ZakMcCracken]

I think there is a misunderstanding over what exactly the European Parliament is. The group has no real political power.

Now this isn't exactly a problem of democracy. It's just that the favored scale of democracy in Europe is national, not European. Europe is not a federation like the US, where States really have not much power compared to the federal power, for "macro" policy matters (including intellectual property).

Thus the important decisions are always taken by mutual agreement of the governments of the countries themselves. It used to be that unanimous agreement was required, but now with the extension to more countries I think the requirement has been relaxed to a "qualified majority" for some issues.

Getting a vote at the European Parliament brings in little more than publicity.

The right place to petition against software patent would not be the European Parliament, whose advice gets routinely ignored anyway, but the *individual governments of each country*.

They keep the real power, and even though they usually say "it's been decided by the Commission in Brussels" to avoid getting the heat when the shit hits the fan a few years later in each country, the truth is that *they* have been deciding it in Brussels.

The respective place of national and European government is something that Europeans have really struggled with since the earliest days of reconstruction following WW2. Even in some States, some contend that the federal govt is taking away too much... picture what would happen if each State in the US spoke a different language and had had a distinctive political history dating back to the Middle Ages...

Re:Why can they do this?

[RWerp]

Why the euroskeptics dislike the EU? Because it has too little democracy, they say. Why does it have too little democracy? Because the eurosceptics prefer to give national governments the right to decide matters over people's - and parliament's - heads. Why the euroskeptics don't wish to give those powers to the Europarliament? Because they dislike the EU...

Re:Why can they do this?

[rs79]

"Can any informed Europeans tell us why the Comission can just ignore what they've been told to do?"

Follow the money.

"Can any informed Europeans tell us why ICANN is so bad"

Follow the money.

"Can any informed Europeans tell us why the US invaded Iraq"

Follow the money.

*this is a recording*

Re:Why can they do this?

[WiFiBro]

"Because they dislike the EU..."
false.
The history of the European Union was not an attempt to reach democracy. You can see this very clearly if you follow several decisions. You will see that the (11-person?) European Commission has the most power, and the parliament can hardly do anything, which is not the same as what you are saying: you say the EU has no decision power, but actually the EU DOES, but there is no proper democratic control.

You may remember too that the European Union initially was not started as a democratic thing, but as an alliance between France and Germany, it had to do with the iron and coal industry or what. It was then called the European Economic Communion and the word Economic describes exactly what it was about. Back then the main lobbyists were the larger transnationals. They still are the most dexterious in getting their plans through.

If you want to read more on the european "democracy", look for 'Trans European Network', 'patents on life' or 'Paul van Buitenen'.

Re:Why can they do this?

[curious.corn]

That was a wee bit different. Buttiglione was "proposed" to the EU commission by the current italian government as compensation for his aid to straighten up a little domestic crisis.

Antefact: our bipolar system rotates around 2 "coalitions" that compete for an electoral bonus. The winning one gets over represented in parliament and the appointment to run the country for a legislature.
During the last non-legislative elections, the Right (Berlusconi's currently in-office "Casa delle Libertà") got a sound beating for a long list of reasons, but simply put: Berlusconi takes care of his judiciary & financial problems and gives a damn about anything else. The internal discipline is formidable, for, whenever there's a Bill or some other Act the Boss desires to pass, rank & file politicians and smaller parties get to execute orders like diligent servicemen.
Compensations vary but one party, the xenophobic Lega Nord, got most of the leftovers among the minor parties and was given way too much media coverage. Those that were left out became jealous of this and worried for their own base as it balked at the sheer ineptitude of the current administration.
The electoral beating gave them a chance to voice their dissent and it took a full year for them to get quiet, some Chair shuffling and a great deal of threats. In particular, one democristian party, led by a man called Follini, was becoming the proverbial thorn in the ass. Enter Buttiglione; he offered to split the party and minoritize Follini.

His service was immediately rewarded with a prestigious nomination to the EU Commission that could be smuggled as tangible recognition to the party's relevance in the coalition (hypocrites). Clearly, the EU parliament wasn't amused for this obvious exchange at it's own cost: Buttiglione took up Mario Monti's slot (yeah, the guy that stood up agains Microsoft...) and grilled the idiot at the first chance; Buttiglione's attitude was also surprising as he did everything possible to get kicked out. He obviously wanted to get kicked out and chose some petty argument to be dealt with championing his fundamentalist catholic agenda.

This long winded post hasn't even scratched the surface of the issue but hopefully it gived an idea of what happened.

Re:Why can they do this?

[SenorCitizen]

The governments of the respective countries were the entities to ask for a new start of the process. The commission is an independent body elected by the council.

No, no and no.

The European Council consists of members of the governments of the member states. They are the ones that have to accept this directive proposal for it to become law. There are obviously countries that want the proposal to go through very badly, and some (maybe enough) that don't. The prospect of opposition is why they are afraid to reopen discussion on the proposal inside the Council.

The Parliament asked for the restart. The Commission chose not to listen to the parliament, but instead listen to the countries on the Council who want the proposal to go through.

The Commission is an independent body, but the members are chosen by the council and approved by the Parliament. Both the Council and the Parliament would have the power to fire the Commission(which will NOT happen, believe me), but the Parliament has no power whatsoever over the Council.

So yes, the GP post was correct -- at this stage the *only* people to complain to are the ministers in your government. They're the ones who will make the vote when the item comes up in a Council meeting.

I think we know what the EC thinks of him.

[bigtallmofo]

From TFA:

Florian Mueller, the manager of the pan-European NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign, condemned the Commission's decision in the strongest terms: "A wannabe Napoleon who heads the Commission and a Microsoft puppet that runs the DG (directorate general) in charge have decided to negate democracy. Now we call on the EU Council to demonstrate a more democratic attitude and to reopen negotiations of its Common Position at the forthcoming meeting of the Competitiveness Council on Monday (7 March)."

It would appear the European Commission has moderated him -1 Flamebait and will be ignoring him.

Been thinking about this lately...

[GreyWolf3000]

Perhaps our rejection of software patents over, say hardware patents, lies in how easy it is to write software and how hard it is to make hardware.

I agree that a lot of software patents are a joke (the isNot example comes to mind)--but so are a lot of non-software patents. I think we just have a preference here because software patents "hit closer to home."

If it were as easy to get "duh-obvious" patents in the hardware realm, the hardware world would similarly be handicapped. In my opinion, we simply need more, better-educated people working at the USPTO, as well as stricter, more consistent rules for granting patents.

A great new idea that no one has thought of before can theoretically exist in any field, even software.

I can see how free software is threatened (I am myself an advocate), but I fail to see how any other hobby activity is also not similarly threatened, except for, say, building remote control cars isn't as easy to "publish" than software.

I guess my point is that the real problem is crappy patents, and they exist in every field, and they cause similar problems. Maybe there is a place for software patents that do truly contain unique and innovative ideas--or at least such a software patent would have more merit to me than a frivolous hardware patent.

Re:Been thinking about this lately...

[nattt]

You miss the point that hardware is a thing, whereas software is, in source form, a free expression of ideas, as any novel in literature is. Software embodies algorithms and algorithms are rightly not-patentable as they would limit under law the range of legal human thought.

Software is more than adequately protected by copyright. The only good solution for software patents is no software patents. I can sort of see the point of patents on hardware, but again, they need to be quality patents or the problem is worse than the solution.

Democracy?

[GeffDE]

I don't believe that the European Commission negated any sort of democracy. Before I get mugged by a bunch of open-sourcers, I must say that I completely agree with the harsh language and condemnatory tone of the article, as well as with the idea of open source. However, a democracy cannot be negated; the fact is, a democracy is a form of government where the people as a whole have the final say. That is obviously not the case, as the European Commission as a whole (and the Microsoft puppet and failed Prime Minister of Portugal specifically) was able to have the "final" say. I find it really petty when people try to get a reaction out of people by using incorrect words that have a strong connotation (like freedom, liberty, democracy) instead of using the correct terminology.

OK

[marcello_dl]

Time to send another round of complaint emails to EU... er... representatives.

Patent laws: made for the benefit of little inventors, opposed by little inventors, pushed by big corporations. Something is quite wrong.

In the name

[Anonymous Coward]

In the name of the Portuguese people: sorry.

But we had to get him out of here!

What in the world!!!

[revery]

per the suggestion of a Microsoft puppet

You will never replace Jim Henson, Mr. Gates... do you hear me?!?!?!! WELL, DO YOU!!?!?

Man, first I quit taking methamphetamines, and now this... If it wasn't for my talking sofa and the giant fat men, I don't think I'd make it through some days...

--

I have no idea what inspired this comment.

More pressure needed on ministers and officials

[codehelp]

The reported reason was that if they do restart, they must produce a new text on which several other Directorate Generals (DG), such as Information Society and Competition, must agree as well. These other DG's would reportedly never support an extreme text such as the one currently on the table in the Council, or even the original Commission proposal from 2002. They would insist on a more balanced approach, which is apparently not desired by DG MARKT - Directorate General for the Internal Market.

In the mean time, highly placed government sources have also confirmed to the FFII that the directive will once more appear as an A-item on 7 March, this time on the agenda of the responsible Competition Council formation. All hope for a democratic and balanced resolution now rests on the shoulders of the ministers and officials who will attend that Council meeting. Turning the directive back into a B-item, i.e. a discussion point, seems to be the only proper way out now.

http://wiki.ffii.org/Com050228En

Any celebrations about the directive being thrown out were premature - the BBC site for one got carried away:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4274811.stm
The European Parliament has thrown out a bill that would have allowed software to be patented.

We wish! The headline was more accurate than the sub-text:
EU software patent law faces axe

Faces, but the axe isn't falling yet.

Seriously

[October_30th]

A wannabe Napoleon who heads the Commission and a Microsoft puppet that runs the DG (directorate general) in charge have decided to negate democracy.

With unhinged comments like that he's never going end up anywhere else than in the populist fringe.

Re:antidisestablishmentarianism

[peragrin]

You are right , No software patents doesn' want software patents and you don't understand either.

It's confusing so I will screw some of this up.

A law was propsed. It got shot down in parliment, The EC picked it up, and tried to ram it through anyway, it got shot down and sent back to the begining of the process to be rewritten. the EC ignored that and is trying to shove it through again.

Somebody wants this law so badly they will bend and break any EU rule they can to get this software patent legistaltion through.

No Banana Union ?!

[D4C5CE]

Meanwhile, one of the Directive's key supporters, the German Federal Ministry of Justice, has reportedly received approximately 500 bananas, shipped in more than 150 parcels, from constituents appalled by what they consider "banana republic style" disrespect for the national and European parliaments.

Re:a Microsoft puppet!?

[Stanistani]

>as per the suggestion of a M... ...uppet
Fozzie Bear is a Lobbyist!
Bork Bork Bork

Re:antidisestablishmentarianism

[One Louder]

This time they're ignoring the "reset" button and barrelling ahead with the previous proposal. The process has not actually stopped this time, just suspended a little bit.

As an American I'm torn - if the EU does not have software patents, they'll easily pull ahead of the United States in the software arena while we litigate ourselves into irrelevancy. However, I'd much rather see the playing field made level by eliminating our own software and business method patents then burden the Europeans with the same yoke.

Mark Twain on politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

"A honest politician is one who, once being bought, stays bought." -- Mark Twain.

Re:antidisestablishmentarianism

[iabervon]

First of all, software patents are not currently prohibited in the EU. The EU does not yet have a position on them, and the EU patent office grants them; they are valid in some countries and not in others, and they are effectively valid in some where they are not strictly valid, due to allowing patents on which don't specify what they apply to to apply to software, despite it not being allowed to specifically apply them to software. Obviously, the current situation is a complete mess, and the EU Commission has called for a directive to resolve it, since that's the Commission's job.

The process started with a directive that would permit software patents. After much discussion and popular outcry from individuals and small and medium-sized businesses, the Parliament amended the directive to prohibit software patents, and passed the resulting version.

The Council (which is composed of people appointed by the democratically-elected governments of the member countries, rather than directly elected individuals), on the other hand, set aside the amendments and passed the original version of the directive, and then claimed that they had reached agreement with the Parliament.

The Commission is supposed to determine what, exactly, the Council and the Parliament have done. They keep trying to sign off on the process without a vote, on the theory that the Council and Parliament agree (on the Council version). Various Commission members have kept this from happening. Meanwhile, various committees of the Parliament have been calling for the entire thing to start over, and the Commission has been ignoring them. Furthermore, the support in the Council for the version is eroding as national parliaments send instructions to their government's representatives not to support it.

So the current status is: the legality of SW patents in Europe is current ambiguous and nobody wants to leave it this way; the resolution currently on the table permits SW patents; the Council is refusing requests from the Parliament to restart the process from scratch, which would permit an anti-SW-patent result.

In the Land of Adults...

[reallocate]

...under the leadership of someone who previously failed as Portuguese prime minister and as per the suggestion of a Microsoft puppet...

Now, that's the kind of insight that gives so many of those people the great reputation they have in the Land of Adults.

Regardess of the merits, or lack thereof, on either side of this issue, that virulent phrase manages to combine the two central themes defining how many free software advocates relate to the rest of the world:

1) Anyone who disagrees with me is incompetent.
2) Anyone who disagrees with me is also taking Microsoft money.

on the other hand

[szo]

Just because something sounds like a flamebait, it doesn't mean its not true.

Szo

Re:antidisestablishmentarianism

[cortana]

For a simple flow chart demonstrating the wonder of modern, simple, transparent government, attend http://europa.eu.int/comm/codecision/stepbystep/di agram_en.htm.

AFAIK, Poland has stopped the law getting as far as 5 twice, and Denmark(?) once. Then the Parliament's legal affairs comitte (JURI) decided almost unanimously that the legislation should be scrapped. But the commission doesn't actually have to listen to the democratic parts of the EU, so now we are at 9-10.

If we are very lucky, MEPs will be angered by the comission's undemocratic actions and reject the common position at 11. Unfortunatly this requires a 70% absolute majority, meaning that 70% of all MEPs (not just those who turn up) have to vote against the legislation. If this happens then we will be proceed to 15, and the European software industry will be saved.

Write to your MEP today! Even if they are neutral on the SWPat issues, they are likely to be angry at how the commission is trying to ignore the entire parliamentry institution.

Re:antidisestablishmentarianism

[Tough Love]

Somebody wants this law so badly they will bend and break any EU rule they can to get this software patent legistaltion through.

None other than Bill Gates. There is a reason he showed up in Brussels the day before the JURI commission was to decide whether the process should be restarted or not. There is a reason that Charlie McCreevy, former head of the Commission and now self-appointed leader of the committee that decides whether to take such steps as ignore the unanimous direction of the European Parliament to restart the process, dances on the end of Bill's string. What is this reason? As former minister of finance of Ireland, and Microsoft being the largest taxpayer in Ireland, Bill Gates paid McCreevy's paycheck. Bill Gates probably still pays McCreevy's paycheck. There is a reason for everything.

Charlie McCreevy

[maidhc]

Charlie McCreevy has a habit of being somewhat headstrong and ignoring practically everyone until he realises his position untenable and is forced to back down sharpish.

While Minister for Finance in Ireland he was forced to row back on a number of announcments made in his budgets due to opposition from the general public. He also gave 50m to an equestrian center without going through the correct procedures; for no apparent reason other than he likes horses.

Eventually his tactics were hurting the government party so badly that he was shafted and sent to Europe for retirement.

Whether he can maintain his current position on patents I do not know, but as an Irish person it isn't surprising to see Charlie's tactics remain the same.